W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2011

Re: [css3-flexbox] getting multiline flexbox back into the spec

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <andrew.fedoniouk@live.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 09:34:34 -0700
Message-ID: <BLU165-ds1988E32114E5B7D1417F3EF8600@phx.gbl>
To: "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, <www-style@w3.org>

-----Original Message----- 
>From: fantasai 
>Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 2:08 AM 
>To: www-style@w3.org 
>Subject: Re: [css3-flexbox] getting multiline flexbox back into the spec 
>
>On 06/06/2011 03:03 PM, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
>>
>> ? What exactly will be rendered in this case:
>>
>> .flex-container {
>> flex-orientation: rows;
>> flex-wrap: no-wrap; /* wrapping what actually? */
>> direction: rtl;
>> flex-direction: backward;
>> }
>> .flex-container > * { width:50%; }
>>
>> with this markup:
>>
>> <div .flex-container>
>> <p>1</p>
>> <p>2</p>
>> <p>3</p>
>> <p>4</p>
>> </div>
>
>You will get four boxes in a row from left to right.

Is this is because of backward(rtl) === ltr ?

Why do we need 'flex-direction' at all?

>
>1 2 3 4
>
>The width of those boxes would be determined by the
>flexbox spec, I'm not sure what it says for four
>boxes of 50% each in a row.
>

As far as I understand all this can be reduced to single
property:
 
  flex-orientation: rows | columns | horizontal | vertical

or to two:

  flex-orientation: horizontal | vertical
  flex-wrap: no-wrap | wrap

or to single one again:

  flow: horizontal[(wrap|balanced)] | 
        vertical[(wrap|balanced)] |
        ... 

In any case, in your definition there is an overhead as
'rows' is a synonym of 'horizontal & wrap'
and 'cols' - 'vertical & wrap'.

Or I just didn't get the idea.

-- 
Andrew Fedoniouk

http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Monday, 6 June 2011 16:35:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:41 GMT